1.
Who Created God? This leads into an infinite regression of deities, unless you claim that "God exists "outside of time" and so is not subject to rules of nature therefore can always exist"
If theists grant that some things do not need a creator, then we may as well simplify and say that it is the universe, or some other ungodlike entity(such as a particle outside of time and space ), that requires no creator.

Occam's Razor

Occam's Razor (or Ockham's Razor) is the philosophical principle which states: entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.
In layman's terms this means "Out of several equally good explanations, pick the simplest one." In this definition, the word "simplest" means "the explanation that contains the fewest assumptions." Similarly, "equally good" refers to the ability of the explanation to account for the observation and not to the veracity of the explanation.

Therefore using Occam's Razor it is better to say that the universe or some type of particle outside of space and time that created the universe was uncreated since it makes less assumptions. So we have no reason to have a God hypothesis

We get the following contradiction. If God is omnibenevolent, then he does not want evil to exist. If God is omniscient, then he must know about all evil in the world. If God is omnipotent, then he must be capable of doing something about it. Therefore, evil should not exist. Dropping any one of those four premises would resolve the contradiction, but dropping #4 would require us to fundamentally redefine evil in some way, and dropping the other three would undermine the most common concept of God.

Common responses

Free will:

Could God create a world with free will yet without evil?
This usually leads into the theists explaining that god is not really all-powerful but can do that which is logically possible(see number 3)

Because of Sin:

Couldn't God make man that he would never sin? Didn't Adam have free will,no evil and couldn't sin until the test came?

God has reasons for allowing/causing temporary suffering/evil:

How would one tell the difference between a good god who allows and/or causes evil/suffering without explaining why, and an evil, or indifferent, god?

Evil is the absence of Good. Just as cold is the absence of hot and dark is the absence of light, evil is the absence of good:

The principal error is that defining cold as an absence of heat only means that cold does not exist only as a physical quantity - the sensation of cold as perceived by humans clearly does exist. Similarly, it is irrelevant whether evil exists as a positive or only as a lack of good - the perception of evil does exist.

This contradicts an omnipresent deity. Furthermore, if accurate then an omnipotent omnibenevolent deity should employ his omnipotence to be omnipresent in order to stand vigilant against evil. Furthermore, if some people can experience a "lack of God", then God is clearly not omnipresent.

Are evil deeds an absence of some corresponding good? Is rape an absence of unrape? Is murder an absence of unmurder? (How many people have you unraped or unmurdered today? We're committing unsins constantly!) Conversely, if baking your neighbor cookies [or name any random act of kindness] is a good deed, what is the absence of that good deed? Is it evil not to bake your neighbour cookies?

3.
Omnipotence Paradox

Can God create a rock so heavy that he can never lift it?

the common response is that "all-powerful" means "God can do everything... that is logically possible" (a common example given is that God can't create a square circle).

This raises the question of what exactly a miracle is, if not doing the impossible. Of course, the qualifier intrinsically is an important one. Still, this seems to paint a picture of God as simply the most powerful being in the universe, instead of an all-powerful one.

It also raises the question of how could god of created the universe. Many theists say "something cannot come from nothing" or "everything that begins to exist has a cause" however in order for god to create the universe he would have to do something that is logically impossible (make nothing into something) . If it is logically possible for a universe to come from nothing than it can without a god. Who decides what is logically possible and what's not? If god decides it than he in fact has made a stone so big he cannot lift it,limiting his own power!

4.
Meta-physical existence argument

Existence precedes essence, though this usually is discussed in a human rather than cosmic sense. Sartre said: "Man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards."

Makes sense.

Along the same line, how could God create or pervade if existence didn't exist? For God to be, there had to be being. Religious believers imagine God existing in some fashion. They usually don't try to imagine existence itself, which is a hell of a lot more mysterious, inexplicable and intriguing than a God with comprehensible qualities.

For the sake of argument, let's say that God exists. In other words, God exists within existence, just like you and I do. This means that God isn't the creator or essence of everything, because something -- existence -- is more fundamental than God.

5.
Failure of Prayer

John 14:12-14 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it."

Matthew 21:21 "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

However we see prayer failing.

"Successful" prayers rarely have an unambiguous form. Apologists point to events like cancers that go into remission or people waking up from comas as evidence for the power of prayer. Yet cancer goes into remission and people wake up from comas all the time. How are we to tell the difference between cancer that healed naturally (or thanks to the presence of skilled doctors) and cancer that was cured miraculously? A commonly asked question is, "Why doesn't God heal amputees?" Live footage of a severed limb miraculously regrowing would be far more convincing as proof of the power of prayer. Yet such prayers are apparently never answered, or answered away from the prying eyes of meddlesome investigators.

If you truly believe god answers your prayers than pray for cancer to be cured or pray for me to convert tonight.

When you get down to it

*Atheism offers the best explanation for unjustified pain and suffering in the world.
*Atheism offers the best explanation for God's silence in the face of adversity.
*Atheism offers the best explanation for the physical dependence of the minds on the brain
*Atheism offers the best explanation for the hiddeness of God.
*Atheism offers the best explanation of religious history.
*Atheism offers the best explanation for religious confusion.

Prior to my opening debate, I wish to state that I am an agnostic atheist but strongly believe that there is no way to deny God's existence at all. Thus, I'll take the role of a theist for the sake of this debate but want to make it clear that all I am debating is that God exists, not definitely but possibly in that I am opposing the statement 'God definitely does no exist' as opposed to just opposing 'God does not exist' merely defying that one can, with any confidence, claim God not to exist shall be my tactical take on this matter and I hope my opponent agrees that this is a reasonable take for me since I can not DEFINITELY prove that God exists, that is completely undebatable for my side.

Before I begin my constructive I shall address my opponent's opening speech with a few rebuttals as I see it good manners to address others before introducing myself.

Firstly, I would like to request to completely take the concept of Ockham's razor out of this debate altogether. There is no concrete evidence to support that Ockham's razor is the way to think or logically analyse information. It merely is one of many ways to come to a conclusion about an unknown idea. However, I shall give several examples where if we were to rely on Ockham's razor, the wrong conclusion would be reached. When we looked at 9/11 we could easily have randomly assumed the simplest assumption; two completely independent guys flying aeroplanes in a totally unplanned attack, not at all related to a large-scale organised terrorist group intending to later bomb and destroy many western structures and civilisations happened to randomly and impulsively take down the twin towers. However, USA's detective department chose not to use Ockham's razor and instead searched every possible solution, only taking the simplest one as a LAST RESORT, if anything they were using the opposite of Ockham's razor to reach the conclusion. A separate example could be with Guy Fawkes and his attempted bombing of the Houses of Parliament. If the British government had chosen not to assume there was a bomber after the slightest hint of a threat then We would have a very different Britain today, however they bothered to investigate and search on a pure hint towards a threat and thank God, or whatever powers they may be, that they didn't use Ockham's razor. A nation was saved by that.

Evil might exist. God might be omnibenevolent. Let's assume that both occur whilst God is omniscient and omnipotent. Then let us ask ourselves what evil is to God. To God, evil might mean ending everything in an instant, or alternatively stopping things from happening. Evil to God might mean stopping people from hurting others if it impedes what should technically happen if it wasn't for God's interference to the rules of physics and logic it (I don't believe God is, in any way, male) set for that particular world. In our world there happens to be free will, pain and people who hurt others, for God to defy the laws of logic and suddenly manipulate the man's mind to be what it is not would mean interfering with the piece of art that it created and may be what God sees as evil and what we see as good. Alternatively, what we see as good (for example having consensual sex prior to marriage) might be what God sees as evil. We can't say that just because God infinitely wants good that the good it wants is the same good that we assume should be considered good, nor that the evil God would stop is what we would consider should be stopped.

The omnipotence paradox is complete nonsense. The paradox is not actually a paradox but rather simple logic. To us, in our rather confined view of what logic and God are, God not being able to create a rock so heavy that it can't lift it seems a valid argument. Just as valid as the square circle argument. However, if you were to take your mind out of our universe and see what could be multiverses in which different forms of logic exist you would see that no matter how heavy a rock God made, God could always make a hand strong enough to lift it. The reason for this is simple, if God wasn't omnipotent then it would be able to create a rock so heavy that it no longer has the potence to create anything able to lift the rock, but it in fact BECAUSE OF GOD'S omnipotence that it is eternally able to create a hand able to lift a rock of any mass and weight. Also, God can make a square and God can make a circle, what exactly does one mean by a square circle? The paradox isn't in that God is both omnipotent and cannot create a square circle, it's that the term square circle is in itself paradoxical. You argument as to that if God is the one who controls logic then it should be able to make a stone with such a great mass that it can't be lifted is to be foolish. God controls logic but it is because it chose to intent logic that God is incapable of defying it. If God chose to abolish logic altogether than I suppose it would be possible for it to make a stone that it can't lift and claim itself to be omnipotent but if it is to be omnipotent by logical means then of course it will always be forever powerful enough to lift any rock it chooses to make, in fact this is not a limit of its power but a limit of logic, and if we use logic we realise that to be omnipotent means God would be able to lift any rock that exists and could exist. Also, there is not evidence that God made nothing into something, merely that God made something. We are incapable of knowing if before something there was nothing, or rather a completely different state of a thing which we, in our confined realm of existence are unable to identify.

As for the meta-physical existence argument, I don't know if this will make me seem stupid but I truly didn't understand it at all, as in I do not see how that in any way indicates God doesn't exist just because God exists within existence, I hope my opponent may explain it in the next round perhaps.

Prayers are a funny thing. If one person prays, whether verbally, or subconsciously with the slightest murmur of thought or will, God will make it happen (hypothetically speaking). However if after one person prays for one team to win football, the next millisecond another person prays for the opposite team to win I suppose God would have to take a first come, first served basis for answering prayers whereby any prayer to contradict one that was made before must be denied for the sake of logic to apply to the world and to existence itself. Equally, if a cancer patient is so sad that they wish cancer would just kill them, whether by a mere feeling or by the thought itself, God might consider this a prayer whereby any prayers afterwards to save the person will be denied for the person wants to escape the suffering as soon as possible, if God can end it by killing them faster than by letting them live then God must do this. You forget to God itself is responsible for science, the cancer must grow at a certain rate for that is how God made it to be, if it is destined to kill the person then god must make it do so for the sake of logic, prayers will indeed be answered but God has a universe to maintain, one can't expect God to answer prayers that would contradict the logic of our very existence.

As for my constructive, I merely wish to raise three main points for my debate.

First of all, is the issue of the issue of God being the seemingly best answer to our existence. An omnipotent being creating us for its random purposes seems to explain everything more than complete randomness happening to have everything occur out of nothing, for the sake of comfort and for people to get over constant pondering in order to deal with daily life, it would be far more practical and somewhat sensible for one to believe in God, since God could exist. Thus as a means of practicality and to leave behind constant agony of not knowing, seemingly being certain of a being that cares for us and made us [yeah I've run out of space].

I would like to thank Pro for accepting the debate (even though we mostly agree). I agree with the philosophy of agnostic atheism, since God is a universal negative he cannot be disproven. However I do disagree with "there is no way to deny God's existence at all." I do say you can reasonably deny the existence of a creator.

1.
At a first glance Pro seems to give some good arguments against Occam's Razor,but we must ask if the razor is applicable to a social aspect. Humans can act stupidly simple and incredibly complex, therefore the razor is questionable when dealing with a social aspect,especially something as a terrorist attack.

Any new, and even more complex theory can still possibly be true. For example: If an individual makes supernatural claims that Leprechauns were responsible for breaking a vase, the simpler explanation would be that he is mistaken, but ongoing ad-hoc justifications (e.g. "And, that's not me on film, they tampered with that too") successfully prevent outright falsification. This endless supply of elaborate competing explanations cannot be ruled out – but by using Occam's Razor.

In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic (rule of thumb) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[1][2] In physics, parsimony was an important heuristic in the formulation of special relativity by Albert Einstein,[3] the development and application of the principle of least action by Pierre Louis Maupertuis and Leonhard Euler,[4] and the development of quantum mechanics by Ludwig Boltzmann, Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg and Louis de Broglie.[1] In chemistry, Occam's razor is often an important heuristic when developing a model of a reaction mechanism. So I would say the razor still applies and is a great tool.

Even if we choose to rule out the razor we still have other reasons for disbelieving in a creator. Such as simply asking why couldn't of the universe(or some particle) of been uncreated and if you look at the track record of the that which has been explained, in naturalism vs supernaturalism naturalism has always rained supreme (e.g. lightning bolts caused by an angry Zeus or something natural)

2.
What is "evil" for humans may not be evil for God. In fact, anything that God chooses to do can be construed as "good". Using this argument, "evil" can not exist in any definable terms when applied to God.

Besides an argument that would be used in a "Tough Love" response (an all powerful God would have no reason even to appear evil) here, Pro treads dangerously close to moral relativism. We know from information in the bible(if it's correct) that moral rules have changed at the will of God. Is God, then, a moral relativist?

If the answer is that God is following a moral plan, then lets go to the Euthyphro dilemma. If the answer is that God changes as he sees fit and anything that god declares as good is good, then what is the difference between being a relativist and following a relativist God?

When someone tries to redefine the premises of "the problem of evil" he finds himself in a morass of relativism, but when he tries to work with the premises he finds himself unwittingly limiting the unlimited God of his religion.

Of course since Pro doesn't subscribe to any religion then Pro could claim that God is a moral relativist, but would this mean god is not all knowing since he should just simply know what is good and not.

"We can't say that just because God infinitely wants good that the good it wants is the same good that we assume should be considered good, nor that the evil......"

If god truly wanted his good (and is all powerful) then he would of sent what is good down to earth. If he simply didn't want or care for people to know then he doesn't infinitely want good.

3.
I think you misread this part. I rephrased the question in my opening response
It was not
" Is God able to create a rock so heavy that it can't lift it " but it was "Can God create a rock so heavy that he can never lift it?"

"Also, there is not evidence that God made nothing into something, merely that God made something. We are incapable of knowing if before something there was nothing, or rather a completely different state of a thing which we, in our confined realm of existence are unable to identify."

This would suggest that God is not the creator of all things, if he truly made something not from nothing. If there existed some thing that God could of naturally created the universe with that existed with him this would seem that the universe needed no creator or it just needed someone jump start it, but then is he really a creator or just a helper? Since a builder didn't create the wood he just assembled the wood into something
4.
Ok let me explain

Existence precedes essence
If God created everything than how did he create existence if it didn't exist or exist outside of existence if existence itself didn't exist. If god was outside of existence than that would mean the statement "God exists" was not true at one point in time and if God exists now outside of existence than that would mean that God does not really exist. If God exists within existence, just like you and I do. This means that God isn't the creator or essence of everything, because something -- existence -- is more fundamental than God.

5.
"You forget to God itself is responsible for science, the cancer must grow at a certain rate for that is how God made it to be, if it is destined to kill the person then god must make it do so for the sake of logic, prayers will indeed be answered but God has a universe to maintain, one can't expect God to answer prayers that would contradict the logic of our very existence."

if it's all just God's will then why pray? God will just do what he wants to whether you pray about it or not.

Sure we don't expect to see prayers answered that would contradict the laws of logic,but I was talking about medical healing.

"An omnipotent being creating us for its random purposes seems to explain everything more than complete randomness happening to have everything occur out of nothing,"

Is there really a difference other than inserting a being?

"for the sake of comfort and for people to get over constant pondering in order to deal with daily life"

Let me rephrase this

"We should use and trust a magic 8 ball for the sake of comfort and for people to get over constant pondering in order to deal with daily life"
and

"it would be far more practical and somewhat sensible for one to believe in psychic powers, since psychic powers could exist. Thus as a means of practicality and to leave behind constant agony of not knowing what happened to your missing child"

Wishful thinking does not make anything true. Someone may be more happier and comfortable with life believing in a god(s),but being drunk or high all the time makes you happier and more comfortable with life to.

Scientists are trained to think that all things can be answered by investigation and the scientific process. They trust their senses and the power of observation and the triumph of the intellect. They want clear evidence, certainty and proof.

Humans are finite beings experiencing three dimensions and confined to a dimension of time. When it comes to the philosophical topic of existence, scientists still want evidence. If there is a Creator, they think to themselves, they would like to observe him using instruments. If God isn't definable using equations and laws, then He can't exist. There's just one big problem: logically, an infinite being would not necessarily be observable or definable by finite creatures using their crude mathematical formulas. An infinite God wouldn't logically be small enough to fit into a definable, finite box.

If some things are not answerable by finite beings using their finite observations, then those things will never be answered by science, but the scientist will persistently look for answers ad infinitum assuming blindly that an answer can be found. If a mystery is presented, like, "Where did the universe come from?" they will simply say that is a problem that they are working on that will someday be solved. What they fail to understand is that reason doesn't have answers for the Infinite. If the universe has existed forever, then reason fails to understand that. How could something not have a beginning? If God has always existed, then reason fails as well. How could anything be uncreated?

The typical agnostic scientist will raise the objection that God is no more reasonable than an uncreated universe that has always existed. But is that really true? For all the world, the universe seems clearly to have had a clear beginning! We call it the Big Bang. How did the universe exist forever? That idea is speculation and not hard science. So far, there is no good evidence that the universe has always existed, and the simplest answer is that the universe had a definitive beginning. If the universe appears to have had a beginning and yet has always existed, then we are crossing into the realm of the imponderable once again.

We need to add that the simplest answer is not always the correct answer. Occam's razor is only a rule of thumb. No one in their right mind really believes that the simplest answer is always correct. Generally, the simpler theories are better and more often correct, but not always. When you take the subjective experiences of people, the brilliant accuracy of the Bible, the complexity of existence, the unlikelihood of life coming into existence by itself, the spiritual nature of humans, the apparent finiteness of the universe, and the appearance of intelligent creation all throughout life on Earth into account, an infinite Creator seems like the simpler theory to where existence came from.

The Bible says several times that man naturally has no interest in God (cf. Ps. 10:4; Rom. 1:21)[1]. More than that, man is said to naturally be at enmity with God (Rom. 8:7)[1]. People are naturally aware of God's existence but they also are naturally disinterested in God. There is a natural bias against God according to the Bible. Herein lies a problem. There is a relationship problem, and no one really wants to acknowledge the true God.

Scientists have become convinced that they have logical ways to get God off the hook, so to speak. They become too trustful of their own abilities to reason and explain things. Those who are smarter are better at reasoning themselves around inconvenient truth. Being smart is not always helpful. Many scientists have brilliantly found what look like ways to explain our existence apart from the power and wisdom of God. But they are self-deceived. They have unwittingly let their bias against God rule their thinking and poison their judgment. Their smart minds have fulfilled the desire of their hearts to run away from God, for you see the ultimate way to run from God is to get your mind to think it doesn't exist. Once the mind has denied God, the conscience can be easily suppressed and God's voice silenced. When someone doesn't want to believe something, it is common for them to resort to denialism.

If the Bible is correct then you would expect there to be a lot of deniers of God's existence. The "wise of this world" are said to be especially blind to the truth (1 Cor. 1:26-28)[1]. The wise of St. Paul's day were the Greeks and other philosophers, not scientists. Today, the wise are the scientists. The Bible accurately predicted that such people who are considered wise in the world would not often accept the truth of God.

I hope my opponent can justify why science and Occam's razor are a means by which to deny God.

It may be true that Science cannot touch God, but perhaps a god needs to be selected as the true god for science to "touch" or perhaps god needs to come and touch science. This argument goes no where towards stating that a god exists, especially a specific god of ones' preference.

It may also be valuable to realize that Science comments on the natural, not the supernatural. Science has nothing yet to prove on the existence of a God -- as much as famous apologists like to argue, nothing of the sort is true.

Presumably when this argument is made, the individual will mean either physically or non-physically. So to rule out these possibilities it may be useful to ask what they mean precisely, this will help identify any meanings that are unknown and help to stop the possibility of 'moving the goalposts'.

If Pro means physically then this will obviously mean nothing as God is not meant to be physical and science technically isn't either. This doesn't prove anything whatsoever. If they mean non-physically then they may be referring to the notion that science has nothing to say on the truly supernatural. This is relatively true, however, if saying that "you can't prove my religion wrong, so my god is possible to exist" is the argument being made then it may be fitting to raise the notion of them considering every other religion ever conceived -- Hinduism, Islam, Pastafarianism, Catholicism, Christianity, or any of the ancient religions that have been wiped out it would seem. If the user of the argument does not want to for any reason, then ask why. The argument they presented is equally valuable to every conceived deity, and should not be used only for a single one of preference.

I am to an agnostic atheist, but I am higher on the irreligious scale. It is a very low probability that god exists, I will not believe in him until there is proper evidence,I live my life as there is no god, and I treat the belief in god like the belief in a magic infinite invisible teapot orbiting the earth. Since science cannot touch this teapot, we cannot define this infinite teapot with our finite nature.

"If a mystery is presented, like, "Where did the universe come from?" they will simply say that is a problem that they are working on that will someday be solved."

Once you understand what "nothing" really is you can understand how the universe can come naturally. In Quantum Mechanics something comes from nothing all the time,in fact you cannot have nothing without something coming from it in QM. Look up Lawrence Krauss to learn some more about this.

"The typical agnostic scientist will raise the objection that God is no more reasonable than an uncreated universe that has always existed. But is that really true? For all the world, the universe seems clearly to have had a clear beginning! We call it the Big Bang. How did the universe exist forever? That idea is speculation and not hard science. So far, there is no good evidence that the universe has always existed, and the simplest answer is that the universe had a definitive beginning. If the universe appears to have had a beginning and yet has always existed, then we are crossing into the realm of the imponderable once again."

I never claimed that the universe always existed, so this is a straw man argument, I am aware that the universe had a beginning and couldn't of existed forever. I said why couldn't of the universe of been uncreated,not existing forever.

Occam's Razor doesn't mean to come up with a simple hypothesis, it is a way of selecting them. A hypothesis is what you come up with and you use Occam's Razor based on the evidence as I said before

"Occam's Razor (or Ockham's Razor) is the philosophical principle which states: entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.
In layman's terms this means "Out of several equally good explanations, pick the simplest one." In this definition, the word "simplest" means "the explanation that contains the fewest assumptions." Similarly, "equally good" refers to the ability of the explanation to account for the observation and not to the veracity of the explanation."

"the subjective experiences of people"
What do you mean?
A subjective experience would suggest that it is in fact something with the people and not a being. Suggestion has been proven to have a huge influence on these "experiences"

"the brilliant accuracy of the Bible"
If you mean scientific accuracy you're wrong and if you mean historical you're wrong to. It is not the right time to debate the bible here,but it is wrong so many levels. What about the people who claim the accuracy of their holy books?

" the complexity of existence"
Please refer to a textbook on evolution.

"the unlikelihood of life coming into existence by itself"
Life coming into existence by itself doesn't rely on likelihood but on biochemistry which is not chance,but simply the laws of nature.

"the spiritual nature of humans"
There is a lot of information on the internet about the human mind,the way of detecting patterns and interpreting them as meaning something special. That plus wishful thinking = A spiritual human. A child is not born with a spiritual nature, it is taught to them by T.V.,parents,churches,etc.

"the apparent finiteness of the universe"
I don't see how this is relevant. Even if the universe was infinite believers could still claim god did it.

"and the appearance of intelligent creation all throughout life on Earth into account,"
Intelligent creation like what?
The prostate?
The wisdom teeth?
The Appendix?
The provision of a really bad, sometimes lethal, system of giving birth?
The human back?
Cancer?
Oncogenes?
Small pox?
I would refer back to a texbook on evolution

So when you look at the evidence,the simplest explanation is naturalism.

"The Bible says several times that man naturally has no interest in God (cf. Ps. 10:4; Rom. 1:21)[1]. More than that, man is said to naturally be at enmity with God (Rom. 8:7)[1]. People are naturally aware of God's existence but they also are naturally disinterested in God. There is a natural bias against God according to the Bible. Herein lies a problem. There is a relationship problem, and no one really wants to acknowledge the true God."

Errrm.... A paragraph earlier you said that humans have a spiritual nature.
Now you're saying that man has no interest in God. If this is true why are there way more believers in some type of religion than unbelievers

" Their smart minds have fulfilled the desire of their hearts to run away from God, for you see the ultimate way to run from God is to get your mind to think it doesn't exist. Once the mind has denied God, the conscience can be easily suppressed and God's voice silenced. When someone doesn't want to believe something, it is common for them to resort to denialism."

The claim is both non-verfiable and non-falsifiable. I deconverted not because I wanted to disbelieve,but because I wanted explanations and evidence. I didn't find any so I have no reason to believe in god any more than a magic invisible teapot.

"If the Bible is correct then you would expect there to be a lot of deniers of God's existence"
This is a great example of the fallacy of affirming the consequent

Affirming the consequent Form
If p then q.
q.
Therefore, p.

To flip this into a Modus Tollens, is there really a lot of deniers of god's existence over religious people? Atheism isn't really that big considering the demographics of religious people. So does that mean the bible isn't correct.

Paul here isn't talking about the future but current era
such as saying
'Brothers and sisters think of what you were when you were called'.....'Not many of you were wise'....'God chose'....

Nothing here about the future.

I would like to thank you for accepting the debate,closing remarks are yours.

This is a debate, it is a discussion of opinions where one is to be considered right and the other wrong. However, all the con has been doing during this entire debate is proposing the idea of God not existing as a rational idea considering the lack of evidence we have of God. Sneaky as the con is with this proposition I will not stand by and accept the nonsense when he begins to make claims such as 'Once you understand what "nothing" really is you can understand how the universe can come naturally. In Quantum Mechanics (QM) something comes from nothing all the time,in fact you cannot have nothing without something coming from it in QM.' but fails to justify the claim and merely asks me to research Lawrence Strauss when it is HE who has the burden of proof of this most astoundingly ridiculous concept. To say that something comes from nothing is not even true, but IF it is true then God is the something that came form the nothing! Additionally, he claims that you cannot have nothing without something coming from it. This would indicate that all nothingness has to have something coming from it and since nothingness existed for eternity then to have existed for eternity and simultaneously only be able to have been nothingness if something came from it we can thus justify an eternal God having existed for eternity coming from the nothingness. The con proposed a quantum physics theory that in fact JUSTIFIES GOD, not NO GOD! That is the beauty of the nonsense, if it is a lie, then the con is a liar and if it true then it is a point for pro to use!

This Ockham's razor concept was defied by both the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers and Guy Fawkes' attempted bombing of the Houses of Parliament. con failed to state why these do not absolutely defy Ockham's razor being a useful concept and merely stated that politics and human affairs differ from philosophy as a means of escape. I see no reason to use such a razor in analysing assumptions and I hope that, being a sensible judge of both this debate and the world as a whole, you do not wish to use it either. If we were always taking the simple assumption then we would never have invented anything. We would still be cavemen assuming that any change to our current barbaric way of life is simply a change that we shouldn't assume will benefit us in any way and thus should merely use Ockham's razor to conclude that there is no use in changing if the simpler option is not to change, and logically it is the simpler option and is why humans instinctively dislike change.

There is a time and a place in which to claim a theory as truth or a valid fact, at the end of a philosophy debate is neither the time nor the place. My opponent tries to justify some of his points with a little foot-note 'Please refer to a textbook on evolution.' not only is this very rude and sarcastic and offensive since I am well versed on this theory but also it is saying that he is justifying his point with a theory, which is just like the theory of God that my opponent stands to tear down using Ockham's razor and yet fails to use this razor on the theory of evolution because perhaps evolution appeals to him as the theory of God does to others.

Just think about life, think about everything and think about you. Why exactly would life exist, why isn't everything inanimate. If quantum physicists think everything came from nothing then why can't God come from nothing? How can a physicist distinguish between himself and a robot of himself? He is worthless and without significance if a more efficient robot could replace him but that would never be true because the significance is something beyond physical explanation, some call it a soul, some call it consciousness but I prefer to call it connection to God. The creator of all clearly made living things superior to non living things since we can use non living things to make better non living things but non living things don't use us to make better living things, nor non living things. Whether or not they could is irrelevant. they don't and that's because God made it to be so. There is something so disgustingly different about watching a rock get smashed and a baby get smashed, unless of course you are a psychopath but even then watching the baby would probably be more enjoyable due to the thrill and this would count as a difference. This difference is the essence of life int eh baby, knowing the force of life, of God, was taken from it something beyond physical explanation or even scientific explanation and that is that.

There is a God because you know there is a God. Whether of not goes exists is up to whether or not, in the unknown abyss that we call history there happened to be an ultimate creator. It's easier to think there was a creator of us and that we have meaning than to believe there is nothing and everything came randomly out of literally nothing. Thus, even using Ockham's razor it seems that the razor is a double sided blade, one which I can twist to justify belief in God, the greatest entity of all.

The response only works if the theist makes the cosmologcal argument. But then you can just skip the whole who made God bit and argue straight from simplicity. The who made god bit isn't relevant at all. Although if don't present some way of the universe coming into being without God, then the whole simplicity argument isn't really successful.

Finally, the problem of evil is itself inherently incoherent and self-defeating. If God does not exist then there is no objective basis in which to ground morality and so evil doesn't actually exist. There is only a series of neutral acts that have had an arbitrary moral framework foisted on them by human minds that could have logically imposed a different or even opposite moral framework. If evil can't truly exist in a world where God does not exist then its existence can't be used as an argument against God's existence.

Magic8000: "If God is omnibenevolent, then he does not want evil to exist. If God is omniscient, then he must know about all evil in the world. If God is omnipotent, then he must be capable of doing something about it. Therefore, evil should not exist."

He then says that the theist must drop one of these premises to resolve the contradiction. In reality, this is not a contradiction. It is a puzzling state of affairs. The fact that someone WANTS something, and even has the POWER to make it happen, doesn't mean they MUST make it happen to avoid exploding logic. In order to solve this puzzle one merely needs to add an additional premise; one that Magic8000 dismissed too easily. If God has a reason for temporarily allowing evil to continue, the confusion is resolved, whether or not we know, understand, or agree with that reason from our limited human perspective. Confusion over his reasons for temporarily allowing evil would not give us a sound basis to question his existence.

Magic8000 says: "How would one tell the difference between a good god who allows and/or causes evil/suffering without explaining why, and an evil, or indifferent, god?"

Who says he hasn't explained why? Nonetheless, the possibility of God being evil or indifferent is not an argument against his existence, only against his character.

"Could God create a world with free will yet without evil? This usually leads into the theists explaining that god is not really all-powerful but can do that which is logically possible"

The term "omnipotent" does not mean "can do anything". It refers to unlimited POWER. Saying that God's omnipotence doesn't allow him to do what is logically impossible is not a matter of theists having to redefine a lesser God. It is simply a matter of correcting a misunderstanding of what God is. Understanding this, it becomes obvious that the question, "Can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?", is absurd.

The CON side tried to appeal to the work of Lawrence Krauss and his fabulously silly claim that "nothing" is unstable. The problem is his poor grasp of "nothing", since what he means by "nothing" is the vacuum state of a quantum field, which is not actually nothing but very much something.

I'm no expert on quantum theory, but most I've heard who are (AND who understand the meaning of the word "nothing") all seem to think Krauss out in the weeds on this one.

The review was written by David Alpert, who is a professor of philosophy and the author of a book called "Quantum Mechanics and Experience". Here's a few excerpts from the review:

"Where, for starters, are the laws of quantum mechanics themselves supposed to have come from? Krauss is more or less upfront, as it turns out, about not having a clue about that."

"[T]he fundamental laws of this theory ... have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place."

"[V]acuum states — no less than giraffes or ... solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-­theoretical equivalent to [nothing] ... is the simple absence of the fields! .... And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence ... as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence ... as my fingers rearrange themselves."

Krauss complains about the 'the intellectual bankruptcy' of those who tell him that he can't refer to these vacuum states as nothing. Alpert says:

"as far as I can see, ... Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right."

Rather, what Occam's Razor accomplishes is suggesting what is the MOST LIKELY correct answer based on the facts CURRENTLY AVAILABLE. Occam's Razor cannot be used to definitively rule out an explanation merely on the grounds that it is not the simplest possible explanation. Again, ironically, the only thing it could definitively rule out is explanations that are TOO simple to truly account for an event.

In terms of this particular debate, Occam's Razor certainly cannot be used to prove God's non-existence. Of course, if God could be demonstrated to not be a NECESSARY explanatory entity, then Occam's Razor would suggest that, all other things being equal, an explanation that does not include or require his existence is statistically more likely to be correct than one that does. However, this would hold only insofar as he is being posited by someone as the explanation for some particular event or set of events or facts.

Conversely, if it could be shown that God (or something very much like him) IS a NECESSARY explanatory entity to explain some event or existing set of facts, then by virtue of him being necessary (i.e. uniquely sufficient) to explain those things, logic alone would dictate that he exists, though whether he is the ultimate explanation or an intermediate cause would remain an open question so far as the principle of Occam's Razor is concerned, though it would suggest the explanatory chain ends with him if he is sufficient to account for all the observed phenomena under consideration.

That's all I have to say on that subject, but there's a few other comments I'd like to make on this debate in other posts in the next while. And I promise I'll try to keep them a lot shorter. I wrote this outside the comment window and didn't realize I was so far over the character limit.

Occam's Razor has a lot going for it, but it is not intended to be an all-encompassing guide to future life decisions. For example, Occam's Razor does not apply to choosing whether or not to buy a house. It would not dictate that zero houses is fewer - and so more simple than - one house, and therefore one ought not to buy a house for fear of contravening Occam's Razor. This would be an absurd application of the principle, dropping it into a scenario for which it was not intended. Again, what it does it does well, but it doesn't do everything.

When it comes to 9/11, we see another illustration of what the Razor does and what it does not do. When the first plane hit the towers, it was assumed to be a tragic accident, and that is precisely what Occam's Razor would have dictated based on the knowledge level at that particular moment. However, when the second plane hit the towers, everybody thought it was an attack, and that's also what Occam's Razor would have dictated based on the additional facts. Contrary to the claim of the PRO side, assuming both hits were accidents was not the simplest explanation according to the principle of Occam's Razor. Rather, assuming the explanatory entities of intent and collusion was considerably more simple than assuming the staggering number of chance events that would have led to the exceedingly improbable event of two separate and independantly acting pilots accidentally flying their jets into the same building complex within minutes of each other.

What this example demonstrates for us is that Occam's Razor is not generally guaranteed to give the correct result. After all, in suggesting the conclusion of an accident after the first attack it would have led to an incorrect conclusion.

Reasons for voting decision: Con did not successfully fulfill his BOP. Namely, proving that God doesn't exist. His arguments against the existence of God was very weak, like for example the 'Omnipotence Paradox' argument and the argument from evil. As for the 'Who created God' argument and the 'Prayer argument', come on. Those arguments are the worst I have ever seen. Indeed, Pro clearly showed that Con's arguments didn't prove that God doesn't exist and thus, he succesfully fulfilled his BOP.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.